Having taken a look at the PH, I guess my question isn't whether 4.0 sucks or rocks, but rather, "Why upgrade?" I'm not really seeing how 4.0 significantly improves the role-playing experience versus 3.x. For that matter, I didn't really see how 3.x was that big of an improvement on 2.0--I think feats were a useful addition, the accounting in 3.0 was a little more straightforward, and multiclassing was better handled. But really those were evolutionary, not revolutionary changes.

I don't see myself using 4.0...I think they screwed the pooch in eliminating multiclassing and not having bards and druids. And why take away some of the alignments? I understand that WoTC needs to roll out new products to make money, but the bottom line is that there's nothing preventing us from having a fulfilling, highly customizable role-playing experience with Third Edition, or even Second for that matter so long as DMs allow a little rule-bending here and there to let players customize characters and color a little outside the lines at times (I always did, as a player and DM).

At the end of the day, I can think of much better uses for $50 than this re-invention of the wheel.

Random note: Disintegrate deals an average of 32.5 damage (5d10+Int, which is 25) at the level you get it (level 19). A level 19 solo monster, the Beholder Eye Tyrant, has 900 HP. An Elder Green Dragon (level 19) gets 910. A non-solo (even though dailies are supposed to e saved up for solo enemies) level 19 Goristro has 450, and indeed a level 3 (non-solo) pseudodragon has 40.

That's right. On average, Disintegrate will not kill a creature that you were fighting 16 levels ago. It does not deserve the name.

Random note: Disintegrate deals an average of 32.5 damage (5d10+Int, which is 25) at the level you get it (level 19). A level 19 solo monster, the Beholder Eye Tyrant, has 900 HP. An Elder Green Dragon (level 19) gets 910. A non-solo (even though dailies are supposed to e saved up for solo enemies) level 19 Goristro has 450, and indeed a level 3 (non-solo) pseudodragon has 40.

That's right. On average, Disintegrate will not kill a creature that you were fighting 16 levels ago. It does not deserve the name.

But now its not only your wizard doing damage to 19+ monsters, the fighter/ranger/everyone else is now keeping up, so the 100-odd damage that the wizard would have done is now divided up among everyone else. Also, now that fort/ref/will work diferently, you're much more likely to actually hit with debuff efects. And with the save changes, that ongoing 10/5 of Disintegrate has a 50% (If using the orb Daily power, you can make it close to 80%) chance of lasting a good number of turns.

It's not that the others are keeping up to the wizard, it's that no-one, wizard-included, is keeping up with monster HP. It's like the designers thought high level (ie "more than 3") fights should be like MMOs, and completely forgot that people would have to sit there, rolling dice over and over again for seven and a half years per encounter.

Worse still is that player HP doesn't scale nearly as well, so pound-for-pound, monsters will TPK the party unless the party can lock the monster into place (slow+shove effects, immobilise etc.) - and once they do decide to do that, that's really the only tactic you have in the game, so that's what they do to every single monster.

And yes, the orb thing helps with the stupidity of saving throws. Except that it starts off with "better than 50% chance to save", high level critters just get a random bonus, and solo monsters seriously get a +5 slapped onto it.

The best Wizard spell is the level 1 "Sleep". Crank up your Wisdom (you may even want your Wisdom to outshine your Intelligence here), use the orb, and put things to sleep. Get the party to play stacks-on and kill them in their sleep.

Then you go and take the rest of the day off so you can cast it again tomorrow. Because it's the best ability in the game.

Oh, and I discovered the one good thing about powers that shift enemies: you can speed combat up *slightly* by shifting them upwards. They take a tiny bit of falling damage, but it adds up over time, maybe cutting an hour or so off the battle. Besides, it's funny to visualise.

I think it would be a good idea to actually get some high level play in before making these judgements. The biggest problem with D&D 3.X at high levels was that HP didn't actually mean anything because everybody was using save or die effects or spells that did so much damage they practically were save or die. Unless you found a way to drastically inflate monster HP, monsters were basically either "unhurt" "hurt" or "dead"

Especially using the fighter's abilities and being able to stack ongoing damage, I can see a high level 4 person party in 4.0 getting about 12-15 attacks per round easy. If each attack does 20 damage average (not an unreasonable assumption at 30th level) then you're looking at about 250 damage a round on the low end, which will kill a monster with 1,500 hp in six rounds, which is around what most of the solo monsters around 30th level have. Add in a round to get the ongoing damage applied, and another round to cover incapacitated PCs and spending actions to heal, and you're looking at about an 8 round battle, which is really a very satisfying sounding length for a battle.

And that's just solo monsters, which are really a little bit wonky in the way they operate. Really, I haven't run a battle in a tabletop RPG where a monster fought alone that wasn't phrased as being a slaughter for the monster in years, but a group of heroes fighting a single vastly more powerful monster is a trope of fantasy fiction. I really wouldn't judge 4E just by the death of save or die though, or the inclusion of solo monsters. They are, after all, an admirable attempt at genre emulation, which is particularly impressive for a part of the genre that translates really badly into games.

I have to say that to this point everybody I have talked to who has given the game a real shot liked it. The thing is you have to take off your 3.5 glasses, they screw up perception.

I had a party of 3 lvl 4 guys (Paladin, Fighter, Rogue) after throwing encounters of different levels at them the end result was that if they dig in their heals use their wits a party can face up to solo encounters of considerable power without being plucked apart by the rain of 12 attacks like in 3e.

Generally their will be enough time to notice you are in trouble and get out. Or for your team mates to mount some form of defense. The rogue was getting hammered so the fighter used one of his powers to smack the Bugbare and slide it back, the rogue could run back

9 out of 10 times the designers of 4e picked fun over queasy realistic, and I agree with them. I don’t think I will stop playing 3e but for your heroic fun game 4e is better equipped. And dont forget this is all just PHB gaming at the moment so dont meshure it up against 3e and all the stuff

My tabletop group, consisting almost entirely of old grognards who first roleplayed when there was this blue and white covered book with a dragon on the cover, have decided to give the new edition a try...after two of them, one of whom is a WoW player as well, showed up for a promo event and got to try it for a few hours.

To quote, "it was almost like playing for the first time again!"

In short, they're both very excited about this. One of them, who has almost never volunteered to run anything declared that given two weeks, he could throw something together. And then he bought me a copy of the new PHB so that he wouldn't have to lend me his.

These are gamers, by the by, who seriously dragged their feet on touching anything d20 (and we still don't like 3.x very much, or Modern d20). We'd take True d20 over OGL any day, given a choice. In fact, we'd rather play something else entirely.

So I'm willing to reserve judgment until we actually try this puppy out around the tabletop.

Oh, and I discovered the one good thing about powers that shift enemies: you can speed combat up *slightly* by shifting them upwards. They take a tiny bit of falling damage, but it adds up over time, maybe cutting an hour or so off the battle. Besides, it's funny to visualise.

It doesn't say that - it says you can push/slide them a number of squares. That includes "straight up", and in some cases it even makes the most sense. And really, it helps speed the game up!

I'll admit that I'm willing to try 4E - but only if given express permission to either change my numbers and abilities more or less as I see fit (ie "putting anything good back into the game") or to stop playing the moment I decide I was right all along (looking at the information is really a good way of knowing how it will work if you're good with rules. And I don't have to smoke a cigar, try sex with a man, or eat a paste of mashed up insects to know I don't like it, the same is true of this).

And it's a shame. It had potential. The problem is, to make an interesting, epic tale, a lot of stuff would have to be added to the game. 3.X merely needs certain high-level things to be ignored (such as "No you can't use your free Wish to wish for an item worth a million GP" and "We know polymorph spells don't work. Let's not use them, or only pick a few favourite useful-but-not-abusive forms.") to do that job well. Oh, and the addition of fighter-types that could be as good as casters (and the monsters they face).

So more changes would be needed for 4E to tell an interesting story than 3E. And this makes us* sad.

I would still absolutely disagree with letting anybody tray to sneak extra damage out of a power by moving things up into the air. And I still disagree that it is intended or can even be read into the rules, lets just say it’s a point we disagree at.

Don’t know, personally I have tried it and like it, it dos not emulate reality its not about that. If somebody wants to emulate reality precisely other systems will serve better, better then 3e for that matter or d20

Personally I have to say it’s a fun system and helps make a fun game, that’s enough for me

So far, for my casual group, 4e is a hit. We just played through half of the "Keep on the shadowfell" And are all in agreement that it was the most fun we've had at 1st level, period. The low levels are such a massive improvement over 3.x just in terms of mechanics.

Also, "interesting" Is entirely up to the D and players to create an "Interesting, epic tale." And its almost easier to do so now, with both the variety of monsters in the MM, and the fact that things like Fort/Ref/Will are AC's now, instead of rolls. At the GamesDay thing, the last boss started casting from his ritual book while the two statues and the skeletons kept us occupied. So I used the Eladirn Fey Step to get through them and then used Mage Hand to jack his book. The DM didn't even have to look it up, and just said to roll INT vs Reflex, since that made the most sense in this case.

The whole system in general is much more intuitive, and if you have a good DM (Not just someone who knows the rules inside out) you can easily create almost any kind of adventure you want within the system.

The reason why it can't make an interesting, epic tale is this: no-one can actually do anything.

Let's see, the players go from "slightly better than a town guard" to... "slightly better than they used to be". If given the choice between ten level 1 wizards and 1 level 20 wizard, I'd choose the ten. They can't take on armies, they can't even contribute meaningfully to large-scale things. They can't intrinsically build things (and sure, any DM can just handwave it and say "You build it", but that suddenly means you're *not using the system* to do stuff), convert people to their team (Diplomacy no longer even has any real guidelines, and apparently the difficulty depends on your level, so it doesn't get easier to make friends after you kill every dragon that threatens them. There are also no effects that make friends. None. At all.), can never fly for any real length of time (no-one cares about 5 minute flight outside of a battle)...

Essentially, the only things you can do are those written on your sheet. Those abilities, for the most part, are the same ability with slightly different numbers and minor changes to the effect (either lingering damage, stun, daze, pushing, knocking prone or immobilising. Hands-up who cares?) So as long as the exciting tale is about 3-5 people walking through a dungeon and using the same handful of abilities, over and over, on varying groups of enemies, then yes, it can do it. But if floating sky castles, gryphon-riding, army-slaying, or for that matter something as simple as rallying an army or animating the dead (note: no-one does that any more), then you can't use 4E for it. You need to either pick another system, or make shit up as you go along, playing a game known as "Magical Tea Party".

So yes, in theory, it is up to the DM and players. Except this time it is seriously up to them to say "Let's throw the book away and do it like this: ______" when they want something they can talk about later.

As for "the most fun we've had at 1st level", I imagine that if I play it, 1st level will be much better than it was in 3E. But try playing to 30th. You'll notice that your abilities are the same all the way up to 30, just about. So by the time you're level 10, you're saying "Hey, if this was 3E, we'd be doing amazing and fun things at this stage!" (and for that matter, because of the slow-ass levelling, reaching tenth will take as long as completing a campaign in 3E). The fact that 1st level is shit in 3E is simple to work around: start somewhere near the 10th mark. Show me anything in 4E that's as cool as 10th+ in 3E.

I'll let you know how it plays at level 30. We're giving ourselves a couple weeks to make sure we have all the rules down before we run level 30s vs Orcus.

And also, I'm not even quite sure you've even read the books completely through. About the only thing thats "missing" Is crafting. And due to the huge exp costs associated with items with any worth, and the fact that only two core classes could really do it, meant that players largely ignored it and simply ignored it. (Or if playing with eberron, simply used an artificer to churn out items using retain essence and the craft reserve, to basically get items for half price, provided you had a few days to kill in the campaign.)

The system is tooled around combat, with many of the non-combat system elements removed. And guess what, that makes it BETTER. Now you need to convince your DM with what you actually say to earn the trust of a cohort, rather than simply rolling the die and asking if it beats the DC. Your own actions should determine what you can do and, and not simply what the table in your class entry says.

And yes, variety is indeed a little low. But there's only THREE BOOKS. My groups 3.5 library consists of about 40 odd books, but how long did it take to get there? And heck, its only been a week and there's already free 4th edition content up at Wizards. (New Demonomicon entry, and stats/history for playing Warforged characters.)

And also, there's no animate dead spells because the Evil half of the old PHB has been cut and put in the DM's guide/future books. And I like it, because it keeps basic players focused on the good side of alignments (where they should be for 99% of campaigns)

Also, doesn't the idea of "Just start at 10th in 3.X" Kind of defeat the purpose of even having those levels? They've taken the fun of 10+ and made that fun kick in at 1st, and it doesn't leave when you get to 30th.

And also, I'm not even quite sure you've even read the books completely through.

I read the PHB through, and I skimmed the MM and DMG.

Quote

About the only thing thats "missing" Is crafting.

I merely meant building stuff, not the actual magic item crafting. But how about: Flying for more than 5 minutes? Changing forms? Animating dead? Befriending exotic beasts that you then use as flying mounts? Raising armies? Being able to fight large armies? Teleportation to places other than those in your immediate vision?

For many of those, the simple reason is "They caused problems in 3.X, and we're too lazy/incompetent/stoned to actually fix the problems. So we'll just remove them entirely."

Quote

The system is tooled around combat, with many of the non-combat system elements removed.

Almost. That basically is true, except they provide just enough information to effectively say "You cannot do this". For instance, the classic spells that make short-term friends just flat-out don't exist, so you have to use diplomacy... which doesn't have standard difficulties for, say, convincing the barkeep to put it on your tab. So everything is magical tea party. The flight thing can't happen, because there are rules for 1/day 5 minute flight, so any kind of "Fly across the world" directly contravenes that.

Quote

Now you need to convince your DM with what you actually say to earn the trust of a cohort, rather than simply rolling the die and asking if it beats the DC. Your own actions should determine what you can do and, and not simply what the table in your class entry says.

Good idea. Also, none of this "make a strength check" stupidity. Players should prove that they are strong enough to do those tasks by breaking the door. Instead of just rolling a die for combat, they should try to hit the DM in the face with a wooden sword. And casters? Oh come on, they shouldn't just look at their sheet, the player should cast a real spell.

You see the problem with what you say?

Quote

And yes, variety is indeed a little low. But there's only THREE BOOKS.

A little low? Almost every non-utility power is exactly the same thing! It's fake choice! The PHB of 3.5 allowed for actual choices - classes actually did vastly different things, there were abilities that weren't "Enemy takes ___ damage. Also, they are slowed/shifted/dazed for a round."

Quote

playing Warforged characters.

I won't hold this against 4E - after all, they were sadly playable in 3E too. But it was still a shitty choice.

Quote

And also, there's no animate dead spells because the Evil half of the old PHB has been cut and put in the DM's guide/future books. And I like it, because it keeps basic players focused on the good side of alignments (where they should be for 99% of campaigns)

I don't know where to start... animating the dead is and isn't evil - they couldn't make their mind up. But I see you've made yours up. It isn't in the DMG (other than "These things exist as the animated dead."), and it probably won't be in future books because it is something that isn't exactly the same as what everything else is doing, and they try to avoid things being different.

And if they really want to force players to play the good guys, they shouldn't even pretend evil is a choice, not just deny them nice things but offer good guys nice things. Besides, their approach to alignments has always been utter balls, and all of the cool deities are evil. Most of the best creatures too, for that matter.

Quote

Also, doesn't the idea of "Just start at 10th in 3.X" Kind of defeat the purpose of even having those levels?

Sure it does, unless someone else likes helping old ladies cross the street and finding buckets for people, and thus likes the early levels. But still, yes, if I were in control, the game would start at tenth, with previous levels existing for NPCs. No, I wouldn't rename 10th as 1st. Everyone would have ten levels to play with upon starting.

Quote

They've taken the fun of 10+ and made that fun kick in at 1st, and it doesn't leave when you get to 30th.

I can only assume you're on crack.

That fun of 10+ does in no way kick in ever. You can not do the Lu Bu routine and be the sole contributor to victory in an army. You cannot be so important that kings plead for your assistance and offer rewards instead of just saying "Do it, otherwise I'll have some guards kill you, and tell a different replaceable group of guys to do it." You cannot have any kind of interaction with monsters that isn't "fighting them" - you can't play as them, you can't team up with them in any way at all, you can't turn into them, you can't ride them into battle, the game even frowns upon you setting down for tea and biscuits with them. You can't command the awe and admiration of everyone as you walk through the streets. You cannot fly or teleport from city to city. You cannot summon things. You cannot black out the sun, or reduce a town to ashes, or place long-lasting curses.

You... can walk through dungeons and use the same few abilities over and over, slowly chipping away at the health of enemies.

*hands in the air* Ok, you know what, ok. You don't like 4e, I get it. I won't even say to go play it, since your mind is so made up already that you'd probably just walk away from the table when you found out you can't do what you could do in 3.x by drawing from four different books, or use an obscure effect that was generally underused in the first place, or wasn't in the original core books anyways. (Hint, that would be everything you described except animate dead (Which yes, was an evil spell, being from the necromancy school)) I'm not the only one with a made up mind it seems, although I've actually played it.

But hey, at least you'll be able to keep playing 3.x. Its not like the books suddenly caught fire. Just gotta hope your group shares your opinion completely.

Quote

Good idea. Also, none of this "make a strength check" stupidity. Players should prove that they are strong enough to do those tasks by breaking the door. Instead of just rolling a die for combat, they should try to hit the DM in the face with a wooden sword. And casters? Oh come on, they shouldn't just look at their sheet, the player should cast a real spell.

And this is the only part I'll directly respond to. Because its just a liiiitle bit stupid. I've played waaay too many campaigns where everyone's favorite 20 comes up and lets the party befriend an ally/monster that's way too strong for them, but the rules now say it's their friend, at least for a little while. And its not fair for the DM to simply fiat it away, since the rules state what the players did was perfectly fine and dandy. Sure, I could say it doesn't work, but then I'm setting a precedent, which discourages players from trying other crazy things that are perfectly fine to attempt (Hurling the halfling at the flying wizard to knock him out of the air)

This gives the DM control over how NPCs/monsters enter and exit the campaign. Which is exactly how its supposed to be. It forces your players to actually role play out what their character says, which was irrelevant in 3.x, you just threw the D20 and whatever it said is what you say.

*hands in the air* Ok, you know what, ok. You don't like 4e, I get it. I won't even say to go play it, since your mind is so made up already

I happen to actually be good with the numbers and reading into these things and predicting how they'll play out. Hell, I happen to share the opinion in this case with someone who accurately told WotC exactly what would go wrong with 3E before it was released. And they elected to ban him from the message boards instead of listen, because solving a problem is harder work than just fooling people into praising your name.

Quote

you'd probably just walk away from the table when you found out you can't do what you could do in 3.x by drawing from four different books

Just about everything I listed there was a core ability, or simply a side-effect of how the rules worked. And when "what you could do in 3.x" includes "anything interesting", I think "I can't do it any more." is a valid criticism. I don't know, maybe you do like the idea of battles taking hours, with repetitious combat ala WoW but where players are forced to roll the dice for all of these things instead of clicking on the enemy then wandering off to do something fun.

Quote

animate dead (Which yes, was an evil spell, being from the necromancy school)

See, now I know you don't know what you're talking about. How about saying "It has the [Evil] tag" - that means it has to be evil. The school of Necromancy does not, and even the concept doesn't - I've seen games where Necromancy could be a valid power for good. WotC even made a "Good Lich" that casts Animate Dead as a spell-like at will.

Quote

I'm not the only one with a made up mind it seems, although I've actually played it.

You played a small segment of it - incidentally, the part that is the most attractive (1st level being better than that of 3E). I've properly examined it and am used to WotC churning out piles of shit, so I actually didn't put my rose-tinted glasses on.

Quote

Just gotta hope your group shares your opinion completely.

Mostly they do - or they wait for my opinion because I think things through better. Except I live hundreds of miles away now, in this shit state where I have no contact with my friends, so really, it's imperative that I do convince people here to see the light and realise how shit this game is. Otherwise, short of abducting people on the street and forcing them to game with me, I do run out of my game of choice.

Quote

And this is the only part I'll directly respond to. Because its just a liiiitle bit stupid.

Of course it was stupid - but it was taking your statement to its logical conclusion. Look, I get it, it's important that the game not degenerate into the boring rolling of dice - after all, that's why I argue against this very system, because "combat = nothing more than rolling dice" and "combat takes forever". However you have to let people use their characters to cover their own abilities. I can't speak well off the top of my head, I have to prepare a speech to do it well. A tabletop game doesn't give me the time to do that. I'm not very good at threatening people, and awful at lying, so I'd much rather say "I threaten, using this angle (point out the basic "what I threaten him with") and trying to get this result ("what I want from him")." and roll a die - or to say "I try to make a believable lie - I don't know, I'll say something he wants to hear." and roll.

Otherwise we're getting people to play as themselves. And I don't want to play as me. And if I did have to do that, I'd certainly use my own knowledge to cultivate opium from poppies, mass produce narcotics and get rich in-game that way, as well as poisoning foes with lethal doses.

So I don't get it. Are you telling me I can't play someone intimidating? Or is it specifically a problem with it being *just* a die roll, and you a least want people to put a tiny bit of thought in and say what they're aiming for?

Part of the reason Second Edition was my favorite version was precisely because it didn't try and cover every aspect of an encounter or character's actions. Heaven forbid a DM should have to actually think outside the box, assign a percentage chance to a character being able to do something based on circumstances, toss the dice, and render a verdict...

At any rate, I would like to insert an insight someone else made. That is, simply, 3e and 4e are developed under very different premises. 3e was designed to simulate a reality and the works of it - it told you how things worked so it wanted a lot of 'stuff' to do that with. If you want to do something, you needed a specific rule. 3e is a rules-simulation: break something down into numbers, determine based on a result. 3e attempts to determine how a fantasy setting would work.

4e was designed to simulate the effects of actions - it doesn't care how you get somewhere or even if it makes sense, only that something -did- happen. Stuff makes sense because someone tried it not because the laws of physics allows it. 4e is a role-/situation-simulation: break something down in to actions and figure out that interaction. 4e attempts to describe how fantasy appears and behaves rather than how it works..

This change in how the game approaches any given situation is perhaps, among many other reasons, why some folks do not like 4e. Some want a simulation. Others, they want action.

Take this situation. Someone is standing on a table. Someone else wants to knock the table over to get the person off.

3e asks: Reflex vs DC X (Are the person's reflexes good enough to land on their feet). The rules break down each portion of what happened to see if the chain of events is possible. Depending, other checks may be asked for like a Strength Check or give a bonus for something (using mechanical leverage to move the table).

4e asks: Attack (or what ever it's called) vs Reflex (Does the person move the table in some way significantly enough to unbalance the other person). All interactions are handled by the idea of an action and the effect of it. This action being some sort applied ability, whether it is Strength being added or a skill bonus added to the attack roll. It groups the events into a singular situation and just sorts out the results.

Now is either way, good or bad? No, it just depends on what you're looking for in your rules.

Yeah, that was the one thing I didn't like about 3e... "So, I want to do this absurd thing." "Ok, let me check and cross reference six different rulebooks that have this cool thing in them, so we can make sure it goes off correctly." I mean, FFS, they have rules in the DMG2 for fighting on swinging ropes, rickety bridges, and other odd terrain. While cool... it's also a bit stifling. The DM can't say "I want it to go like this," because some rules lawyer is going to say "But it's supposed to go like this." In 4th, like in 2nd, they actually give the DMs the guidelines for making the appropriate rules, but don't set in stone that grabbing a swinging rope is an AC 10 touch attack, and that you need to hit a DC12 str check to hold on and swing (15 if you do it one handed!), and that you need a DC 15 reflex save to catch yourself if you fall...

The point I'm trying to make is that they're taking a lot of power away from rules lawyers. Which is not a bad thing, IMHO. The solution I had to one of them was, essentially, "Fuck you. I'm rewriting the rules, so your absurdist logic no longer works here." Now, the rules lawyer has lost a lot of his stranglehold on situations, and the power is back in the DM's hands to control the flow of story, and ensure that Bob the Wizard doesn't just Forcecage/Cloudkill every creature that can breathe, or whatever broken combo of the week we're using, while poor Jim the Fighter sits there with his thumb up his ass, waiting to be handed a shiny new trinket, or to fight some scrub the wizard is too busy to waste in six seconds.

I'm the guy who plays the wizard, and I'm complaining. When at 7th level, I know, for absolute certain, I can win one encounter a day, with just me and the rogue, something's wrong. (Greater Invis + Polymorph into a hydra on the rogue. *grin*)

Well as much as I like power (and "having to learn the rules") being in the DMs hands rather than "whichever player bought the newest book", rule 0 actually achieved everything that the "ground-breaking" design of 4E does: the DM could say "It works like this." - and had as much of a right to as they do now. But they could also check in obscure books for it if they felt like it.

The funny thing about swinging from a rope now is that, like everything else in the game, it seriously does scale with your level. So that same rope will become magically resistant to you, increasing the DC to make up for your increased ranks. Because heaven forbid the PCs ever be good at something.

Of course, now the DM doesn't even need to stay up-to-date with the rules. No-one does, really. Which is a good thing, but if given the choice between "4E - it's simple! ...and nothing else" and "the fun and options of 3.5, but with the complexity of AD&D+3.5+FATAL", well, I'd choose the latter. I think they decided making things simple is the most important thing in game design.

And where I come from, being a rules lawyer is a good thing: the DM just wants to run a fun game, and so when someone is faced with something they don't understand, another player (such as me, for one of the groups) is turned to to explain it in terms anyone can understand. I even made a little print-out, complete with chibi D&D characters and silly jokes, explaining the trickier aspects. And people learned as a result.

I've gotta say, even if you don't like 4e, even if you think the rules behind it disagree with roleplaying as a whole... everyone should read this guy's story. This is simply amazing, and shows exactly what 4e was written for, what is was meant to accomplish.

I have to Agree to Kongming on one thing, Epic in this game leaves something to be desired. The most desireable thing I've seen in some of the Epic level things is the Feats. You don't become supremely awesome anymore. How good or bad that is, I'll have to see as the game unfolds after our pratice game I think once per Day powers should at a minumum be Ability +2 because getting hosed out of those was annoying and given the infrequency you can use them, they should be more of a golden bullet then slightly higher calibur.

I asked some of the same questions about the animate dead and other missing spells. Additional Classes. As I've been informed they are going to be adding Necormancer and Druid to say the least, which would be getting necormancy and Transfiguration spells respectively.

Part of me likes that all a player even needs to holds it the player's guide, it covers magical items and everything else he needs without requiring them to crack open the books on the GM's end of the table.

I think one thing we should take into account is that there are only the three books out so far. It is enough to play the game, as was the same set of books in 3.X, but you really got something out of the game when you added more books. As the publish more, they should cover more options and realize 'oops we forgot'.

Well I would say that 3E and 4e are definitely meant for different things, bit have things they just do better.

But honestly I have always despised the typical party based game guan epic, because it becomes more and more ridiculous. I haven’t tried anything past lvl 11 in 4e yet but I have had the chance to tray in 3e and its just EGH some people like it but for me all it represents is the disintegration of the system

Having played D&D from a single foray in red box, to 1e Oriental Adventures (I ran it solo for my brother, self-taught and everything) and then diving full head into 2e, then getting 3e, and now having tried the game day even on the 7th of June, I have to say:

4e is a better game than all I've ever played in the D&D line. The characters felt useful, they always had cool things to do, and frankly, the game made sense in terms of a game. And from what I can tell from reading a friends copy of the 3 core books, at least the fighter doesn't plateau at 3rd level (In AD&D 2e, before the Powers and Options stuff showed up, the fighter really had nothing more to look for other than magical toys), they also don't get trumped by magic users after level 7 (In which the properly prepared Cleric, Druid, or with the proper spells, the Wizard who after level 9 can BE the party.) This looks good balanced fun. Kinda like Disgaea and all the others in the line.

Is it what I want for my fantasy gaming, though? I don't know.

Part of the issue was the fact that our GM wanted and used the minis provided and the moment he did, he became competitive and played to 'win'. He used every dirty trick he could think of to TPK the party, which he did. Despite the fact that some of the monsters weren't that smart. He didn't get 'in character' because the minis changed everythihng in his mind. It stopped being D&D and became DDM.

However, personally, I prefer to roleplay the non-combat stuff. Lord knows that 'common sense' did not rule the day with 3.x, dear God the sheer amount of stupidity when it came to certain bits, like Diplomacy or Grapple. I don't need rules to tell me how to play my character, and I trust my various players to not act like dicks, because we're friends first. So, sorry White Wolf, but all your various mechanics to teach us how to play the game 'right' aren't necessary.

And honestly, I don't trust the judgment of sites like Paizo, the Gaming Den or Enworld, because they're all biased. Paizo and the Gaming Den came in hating the very idea of 4th ed. straight out of the box, they did not want to like, and so, they don't finding each and every nitpick they could find. There might be some legitimate gripes in there, but between the hyperbole and outright hatemongering, it's hard to see them. Enworld is equally useless with it's gushing fans and pointless ravings over what could be, and their blindness to any faults.

But like every iteration of D&D the fan base is mostly polarized between irrational hate and love, with us fence sitters in the middle looking at you all with a mix of amusement and sadness.

However, my biggest beef is the actual system. See, I'm torn. On one hand I can understand and get behind every class having the same style of mechanics (The Dailies, at Wills and Encounter) but on the other hand, the flavour seems 'lost'.

I'm one of those idiots who, although wants every character to have the ability to do cool stuff, feels the need to differentiate between the Physical and the Mystical. To ME, and JUST TO ME, I need something where the fighting men and women (Including the Skill Monkeys) have a certain method of resolving their fighting, while the Casters have something equally difficult but doesn't feel the same.

I'm pretty sure no one will understand what I mean, but that's my problem.

I'll play and run it though. At least it's not Exalted, where the game actively hates those that want to run it.